In the words of Rebecca Burns, "Long term domestic violence is like being kidnapped and tortured for ransom but you will never have enough to pay off the kidnapper." It is one's basic right to defend one's self in order to end domestic violence. As stated in the quote and in countless statistics, domestic violence is the equivalent of kidnapping and entrapment and causes extreme problems for the United States, and therefore, the country cannot exist in peace with it. Therefore I must affirm today's resolution, Resolved: It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domestic violence. Definitions will be clarified upon request in the cross-examination period.
I will now provide some important observations of framework for the debate today.
Observation 1: The premises of the debate should be based on the actual process of domestic violence, not in the legal issues that follow. The initial use of deadly force is the only idea mentioned in the resolution and therefore any arguments made by the negative based on other ideas other than the initial use and the morality, not legalese, of deadly force.
Observation 2: The premises of the debate should not be based on the fact that the use of deadly force is right, but if it should be allowed. The debate should not be based on if domestic violence is the most morally right of all options, but if it should be an option. Any arguments made by the negative proposing other options to deadly force should be ignored.
Observation 3: The premises of the debate should not be based on a worldwide verses United States argument. Any arguments made by the negative against the affirmative based on a worldwide verses United States ground should be ignored unless they are specific to morals outside of the United States.
My value in today's debate will be that of justice. Plato defined justice as "…doing good to one's friend if he is good and harming one's enemy if he is bad." Domestic violence harms all people that have been exposed to the abuser, so it is one's own basic right and even duty to end the injustice brought upon an abuser. My criterion in today's debate will be that of upholding deontology. The idea of deontology is the upholding of the idea that the initial act is the only idea that should matter, and that the future impacts of the action are irrelevant. This can factor into the resolution and my provided framework that the initial use of deadly force should be the only idea that should be the factor in this debate and that the impacts afterward are irrelevant to the debate. This also factors into the idea of justice due to the fact that the initial use of deadly force should be the only idea that is deemed morally permissible or not, and that humans should not be treated as objects, so it is right for one to use deadly force to uphold deontology and therefore justice.
Contention 1: Trauma. Domestic violence is currently the leading cause of mental trauma and its effects in the United States. One in six people that have been victims of domestic abuse have had suicidal thoughts or actions. It has also been proven to cause extreme depression and/or substance abuse. As proven in the studies of the Mental Health Association of America, "Survivors of violent acts, such as domestic violence, rape, sexual, physical and/or verbal abuse or physical attacks are much more likely to develop posttraumatic stress disorder." PTSD can lead to symptoms such as unpleasant recollection of the traumatic event, constantly being angered or frightened, and/or avoiding anything that reminds them of the trauma-causing event. The only true way to cure trauma caused by events such as domestic violence is to deal with the source. It is morally right to allow a victim to deal with the source of trauma and violence with deadly force, because deadly force is the most efficient way to get rid of a problem such as domestic violence.
Contention 2: Domestic violence violates personal rights. As proven by the UNICEF Research Center, domestic violence causes extreme damage, both physical and psychological, to all people who are victims. There is proof that all people involved in a case of domestic violence are harmed. It has proven that children that are victims of domestic abuse will usually not speak up about it do to constant trauma and distress at every reminder of the event or fear that they will be abused further by the offender. It is the right of the victim to be able to bring justice to themselves and their families that was taken by the abuser. If domestic violence harms all people other than the offender, then it is morally right for the victim to be able to fight back. In addition, when one commits a crime that violates one's personal rights, they willingly revoke their own rights of life, liberty, and property.
Contention 3: Domestic violence is prevalent.
Myth: Domestic violence occurs only in poor, uneducated and minority families. Fact: Domestic violence occurs among families of all income levels, nationalities, and identities. Studies of domestic violence consistently have found that battering occurs among all types of families, regardless of income, profession, region, ethnicity, educational level or race. However, the fact that lower income victims and abusers are over-represented in calls to police, battered women's shelters and social services may be due to a lack of other resources. Also, stigma controls bodies into categories of powerlessness. The descriptions of the victims no longer take the form of tragic legends, nor are the actions of the victims "monuments for future memory." For the modern victim of circumstance the characterization of their lives will serve as a means to classify them into groups of powerless abnormals. The descriptions of victim's personalities (or their social psychology) individualize their situation through a comparison with the norm. Individualization becomes a process of control—a mark of difference or a badge of stigma. Foucault describes how this happens: "When one wishes to individualize the healthy, normal and law abiding adult, it is always by asking him how much of the child he has seen in him, what secret madness lies within him, and what fundamental crime has he dreamt of committing."
In conclusion it is the right and the duty for the victim of domestic violence to be able to end the injustice that is brought upon them by an abuser. The contentions draw the conclusion that the use of deliberate deadly force can bring justice to the abuser and the victims. I now stand open for cross examination.

Resolved: It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domestic violence.
I would like to define a few terms at this time. All definitions will come from [Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary. 1983. New York: Simon & Schuster, INC.] Unless I say otherwise.
Moral- is defined as "principles and practice in regard to right and wrong; ethical."
Permit- is defined as "to suffer without giving expressed authority; to allow."
Deadly- is defined as "capable of causing death; fatal."
Deliberate- is defined as "carefully thought out; intentional."
Domestic Violence- the following contextual definition is from [ Meyersfeld, Bonita. 2003. Albany Law Review. 67:371] Defines domestic violence as: physical abuse; sexual abuse; emotional verbal and psychological abuse; economic abuse; intimidation; harassment; stalking; damage to property; entry into the complainant's residence without consent, where parties do not share the same residence; or any other controlling or abusive behavior towards a complainant, where such conduct harms, or may cause imminent harm to, the safety, health or wellbeing of the complainant.
I would first like to observe that the phrasing which the affirmative must defend as a warrant for the use of deadly force is a monochromatic notion of domestic violence. Numerous authors gradate domestic violence into categories, with different responses being justified by differing levels of action. The affirmative, however, is not permitted the luxury of such parsing. One example of such a binary is offered by [ Meyersfeld, Bonita. 2003. Albany Law Review. 67:371.] "Domestic Violence is a term that applies to a miscellany of harm. Currently, falling within the one composite term of domestic violence are acts as diverse as shoving, pushing, or verbal denigration (category one) on the other hand, battering, breaking bones, burning, raping, and torturing (category two) on the other. This separation is not to attribute a lesser status to category one, but rather to carve out a more extreme physical form of violence so that each category has the appropriate mechanism to combat its occurrence." The resolution posits a situation where domestic violence is not specific and so the affirmative must uphold that the use of deadly force is morally permissible in response to all forms of repeated domestic violence, not only is the affirmative advocating use of deadly force in response to beatings and rape, but in response to pushing and verbal denigration as well.
My value in today's debate will be societal welfare. This is the most important value we can consider in today's debate because without society we would be in this state of nature with no government or laws. A state where there is no authority and individuals are free to do whatever they wish even at the expense of others. Theft, rape and murder are all ok in this state of nature because there is nothing to say that it is not.
This leads me directly to my value criterion of Jean-Jacques Rousseau normative social contract theory "Through the collective renunciation of the individual rights and freedom that one has in the State of Nature, and the transfer of these rights to the collective body, a new ‘person', as it were, is formed. The sovereign is thus formed when free and equal persons come together and agree to create themselves anew as a single body, directed to the good of all considered together. So, just as individual wills are directed towards individual interests, the general will, once formed, is directed towards the common good, understood and agreed to collectively. Included in this version of the social contract is the idea of reciprocated duties: the sovereign is committed to the good of the individuals who constitute it, and each individual is likewise committed to the good of the whole. Given this, individuals cannot be given liberty to decide whether it is in their own interests to fulfill their duties to the Sovereign, while at the same time being allowed to reap the benefits of citizenship." The social contract clearly outlines that society was formed and maintained on the idea that individuals have given up certain rights that they had in the state of nature such as killing, and that as long as they are receiving the benefits of that society they must follows the states laws. Because these victims would be taking justice into their own hands and not following the laws of the sovereign, the affirmative is advocating the dissolution of the social contract and a return to the state of nature which no individual or society morally wishes.
I will two main points to support my analysis: (1) moral irresponsibility; (2) Improvement in state protection undermines justification, moral or otherwise, for vigilante action.
To my first point of moral irresponsibility. If, as the topic dictates, the violence is repeated, then the victim clearly had the opportunity to leave and/or call law enforcement. Failure to do so might be understandable as human frailty, but that is not the question posed by the resolution. Several authors take very strong positions about what they consider to be an abuse excuse. [Newby, Ryan. 2011. Hastings Women's Law Journal. Winter. 22:113] "Some have argued that women who kill or otherwise harm their husbands receive undue leniency due to illegitimate use of what Alan Dershowitz has called the abuse excuse. Dershowitz criticizes the use of past harm to show the reasonableness of deadly violence. He and others, like James Q. Wilson, have argued that the acceptance of Battered Woman Syndrome evidence shows a decline in the importance of personal responsibility in American Society." The resolution is not asking us if we understand how victims come to kill their abusers but if they should receive a moral pass for it and the answer is no. We may understand how a psychopath's, who is mentally incapable of caring, gets to become a serial killer nevertheless we don't morally condone the action.
This leads me directly to my second point that improvement in state protection undermines justification, moral or otherwise, for vigilante action. If the state was being derelict in their social contract obligations to attempt to protect victims of domestic violence, perhaps a violent response might be justifiable. However, considerable progress has been made in confronting this significant problem. [Whitley R.P. Kaufman, department of Philosophy at University of Massachusetts Lowell, New Criminal Law Review, Volume 10, 2007.] "Indeed, given the extraordinary attention paid to protecting battered women since the issue became prominent three decades ago-including the passage of domestic violence reform statutes in all fifty states, the federal Violence Against Woman Act, statutes authorizing mandatory warrantless arrests for misdemeanor assaults in domestic violence cases, specialized domestic violence courts in some states, statutes authorizing expert testimony on battered women's syndrome," mass clemencies for convicted battered women killers (including twenty-five women freed in Ohio in 1991), and even the rise of an entire new tort for battered women—it would be difficult to defend the claim that women in general, or abused women in particular, are systematically excluded from protection of the law." We can see from this evidence that the government is doing their duty to protect individuals from domestic violence.
In conclusion my case is very simple, not only are the abused morally irresponsible for not leaving or contacting the authorities in response to repeated domestic violence but the state also has many laws in place to help and protect these individuals. Because of this we can see that the social contract is in place and that then individual as no moral justification to ignore the law.
Now move with me as I attack my opponent's case.

I will accept this challenge and use ld format for my argument. also i dont think this is a viable forum to really hold cross examination considering we have five rounds to argue this topic i think we have sufficient time to argue the case. Clearly I may or may not agree with the pro observations if i argue against those observations obviously it will be up to the judges to decide rather or not to accept my arguments. I will post my negative within 24 hours good luck to my opponent.

"Observation 2: The premises of the debate should not be based on the fact that the use of deadly force is right, but if it should be allowed. The debate should not be based on if domestic violence is the most morally right of all options, but if it should be an option. Any arguments made by the negative proposing other options to deadly force should be ignored."

So you are arguing that it is morally permissible. Or in other words in relation with standards of good and bad character but, we can not argued whether it is right, or good, to use deadly violence and if there are other ways to end the violence you cannot argue that either....